"Why are we sending money overseas when we have homeless and hungry people here in the US" - is just a cynical deflection. There is NOTHING stopping the Republican politicians who spew that comment from appropriating funds to house veterans. NOTHING - but themselves. Show me a Republican bill that proposed addressing homeless and hungry people in the US which was shot down by Democrats. NO SUCH BILL EXISTS. And in fact any time Democrats try to push an agenda to address homelessness, it's the Republicans who shoot it down. |
I can hear your hand-rubbing through the internet. |
I'm not sure why you're acting shocked that the fanatics of a party whose ideology is entirely based on grievance politics routinely make up things to be angry about. |
There is no contradiction there at all. He needs no help from "government programs." But, he, no doubt, know many that do. Instead our tax dollars are going, in the TRILLIONS to support foreign governments instead of taking care of our own homeless and poverty ridden citizens. You just don't get it. |
There’s a vast contradiction in saying someone who needs food stamps is “milkin’ welfare” but also complaining about foreign assistance. If the people here in the United States who receive food aid are so undeserving, why do they need more? |
We don't send trillions of dollars to foreign governments. We spend about $40 billion in aid to foreign governments, with another ~$75 billion to Ukraine. That's about $115 billion, which is $885 billion less than one trillion, never mind multiple trillions: https://concernusa.org/news/foreign-aid-by-country/#:~:text=Foreign%20aid%20by%20country%202022,has%20disbursed%20over%20%2432%20billion. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=Since%20the%20war%20began%2C%20the,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute. We do, however, spend several trillions of dollars on our own citizens by funding Medicare, Medicaid, housing assistance, SNAP, SSI, TANF, EITC, etc: https://www.thepolicycircle.org/brief/safety-net-programs/ I'm glad to hear, though, that you think we should be spending more on our social safety net. I trust that you will vote for Democrats who support those expanding and funding those policies. Right? |
Then why is he complaining about being so downtrodden by the Yankees? The song is all loser talk. |
That is NOT what he said. |
Isn't it amazing that someone who writes a song that speaks to MILLIONS across the nation from all backgrounds is able to be discovered and make money off something he loves doing... and is good at? Good for him. He is a sincere, humble man who has managed to get a following because others can relate to him and his experiences. And, he is not referring to the "Yankees." I swear I believe some of you are being intentionally obtuse. |
That’s nice, but I spend my time and resources helping people who desire to improve their situation. Sadly the mentally ill and drug addicted hobos urinating in the streets do not or cannot. But by all means go ahead and use your resources to assist them. |
Most americans prefer democratic policies whether they think they do or don't. Most just have a mental block based upon how they were raised to switch parties. If you told the bottom 50% of income earners that they will get $1,000/mo from Uncle Sam (but say the republicans wanted to do this) they would all support that -- Ds and Rs. People are so blinded by the past they can't realize what would benefit their family moving forward. |
I don't agree with you at all. Most of the people I know who received money during the pandemic were outraged that the govt. was sending out money to everyone - whether they needed it or not. It was a waste. Yes - send out funding to those unable to work or earn a living. But, those of us who were still receiving income or pension payments did not need the money. I think most honest people would object to such a plan. |
They had to act quickly, hence the help for everyone. Because it was a PANDEMIC! |
Intellectually honest people, however, would not object to such a plan, because 1) there is a significant administrative cost in determining eligibility, and 2) there is a significant time cost in determining eligibility. Getting money quickly to people who needed it was more important than sending a $700 check to someone still gainfully employed. |